Today we’re looking at The Siege of Petersburg, the counterpart to Channel Tunnel in our exploration of 2 player scenarios (though this one can also be played with exactly 4 players). The Channel Tunnel had some ambitious ideas that shook the core game up significantly, but ultimately felt like too big a departure to want to play regularly. The Siege of Petersburg is similar in its ambitions. Let’s see how it shapes up.

Overview and main changes

Like the Channel Tunnel, this scenario changes a lot:

• There is no weather, work rates are fixed.

• There are now military generals on the board fighting a war and the winner affects how contracts score

• Players can manipulate the war using a new H action

• The game no longer ends if the track is complete. It instead ends when the generals meet

• The event track is greatly altered

• Track and buildings can be destroyed

• Rubble is still obtainable once the board is empty

The Battle + Weather

Generals start at either end of the line and proceed towards the opposing side whenever their coloured weather token is resolved. Like in the Channel Tunnel, this completely replaces weather, meaning we have fixed work rates again for the entire scenario. This time fixed at 3 excavation and 1 track laying.

It’s important to note though that unlike Channel Tunnel, the weather distribution of the deck has not been altered at all. It’s still 13 rain, 11 sun and 6 fog. This means the Union will march more than twice as often as the confederacy, making them heavily favoured to win without intervention.

H action

There is a new H action “Turn the tides” which allows players to swap the next weather disc to the colour matching the opposite side (Fog for Confederacy, rain for the Union). This action doesn’t give any direct value, but pushing back the right general at the right time could destroy supply spaces or make it more likely your contracts score.

Track

The track is double-sided and can be freely worked on from either side by either player. Notably, the first 4 track on the Confederate side start pre-laid by the game, creating an unbroken line of 4 station excavation spaces.

Track is otherwise looking quite poor in this scenario:

• The action efficiency of track is diminished by the fixed work rate.

• Its contracts are thinned from the deck (track is dependent on contracts to be more valuable than building).

• Your track could be destroyed by events.

This makes it one of the weakest options.

Stations

Station spaces here break up into 4 types:

• Excavation spaces work as they do in every other scenario. 

• The steel bar spaces at the bottom count as track (but cannot be used for anything else).

• Supply spaces (mounted on brown boxes) cost stone and rubble, if the general from that station’s side ever retreats from this station, all ownership markers on supply spaces are returned to their owner.

• Fort spaces, all of them costing 2 stone for 5 points, a built fort will prevent any supply spaces from being destroyed in a retreat.

2 stone for 5 points is good. So forts are desirable. Resultantly, you shouldn’t be too scared of the threat to supply spaces since the effort to protect them is plenty profitable unto itself. The supply spaces costing rubble is a bit of a pain, but ideally you’ve acquired that rubble from station excavation spaces, in which case it’s not that steep a cost to pay.

I think the track building spaces are a trap here. Track is available enough as it is and there are only 7 contracts in the deck that actually require it. So burning a steel bar for 0VP vs a track card here feels weak.

Surveyor

Your surveyor is assigned to start at one end of the track or the other which affects certain contracts. 

On the surface, they’re otherwise back to just walking the path here… except the reward for getting to the end is now a whopping 35 points.

This is slightly unfortunate as it makes the G action one of the most efficient and consistent scoring options in the game. Getting to the end nets you about 4.4 points per action… You need to be pulling off big contracts in this scenario (tricky, as all the high scoring track contracts have been removed) or consistently hitting station excavations (contested by your opponent) to match this for value.

Trains

Not Pictured: General Herman Haupt. Costs 1 steel, offers 1 worker for 1 coal. Gives you a stone every time you take the G action.

Most of these trains are strong.

The G action is one of the best in this scenario and General Herman Haupt provides 8 stone to make it even better.

Holden Rhodes eliminates the rubble cost on all the supply stations which suddenly makes them very efficient.

General John C Robinson might be a little harder to leverage since you need to want to build twice in one turn. Requiring you to have a lot of resources first. But for only 1 steel and coming with a coal, it’s a good exchange rate for a few free actions.

The Dictator is the outlier. It's quite bad. It offers 3VP every time you take the H action while the Union is past the midway point. That’s an acceptable way to get points… but The Dictator doesn’t let you take your temporary labourer from the pub which is the primary reason to get a train to begin with!

Events

There are 2 new events, military sabotage and military conflict. Military sabotage, like the weather, causes the generals to push one way or the other, potentially destroying supply spaces in the process. Military conflict removes player markers from track on the board.

Notably if your ownership marker is removed by one of these events, you do have the option to immediately assign it to a contract instead of returning it to your personal supply. This can soften the blow, especially with track contracts. In very niche circumstances, it may even be beneficial since you could lay the destroyed track again, potentially getting more track ownership markers for contracts.

Also notable is that both of these new events decide which side is attacked based on the middle weather disc. So without intervention from the H action, this favours the union winning the siege but will also most frequently destroy the union’s track.

Excavation has also changed, excavating just 1 card rather than the 3 the work rate would suggest. This excavation always takes place on the Union side, balancing out the confederacy’s 4 laid track at the start of the game.

Contract cards

These contracts' VP rewards are where the outcome of the battle becomes relevant. Your ownership markers on station spaces only count if the general of the indicated colour has progressed past them. Meaning if the war results in a lopsided outcome, half of the contracts above become difficult to score.

The surveyor contracts award their points automatically if the side your surveyor started the game with wins. I think the Union's massive advantage in the battle makes these a little unfair since the start positions for surveyors are decided randomly.

Jaya’s design thoughts

Like Channel Tunnel last month, this scenario is also very experimental. I like a lot of its systems but feel they don’t get to shine due to VP and weather symbol distribution.

For example, the potential drama of supply spaces getting destroyed is exciting, but in practice, I find the forts offer favourable enough points exchanges that you’ll never take the risk of losing a space.

The unique contracts encourage investment in the battle, but feel slightly scuppered by the massive VP offered by the surveyor and the huge innate imbalance between the 2 sides of the fight. Really the only reason I can see to support the confederates at all is if your opponent has heavily invested in union contracts while you have none.

One thing I do really like about the scenario is the way it handles the double ended track. We’ve seen Blaenau Ffestiniog and Channel Tunnel force players to work from opposite ends. Here though, both sides are up for grabs, creating more options and fork points in worker placement. I greatly prefer this as it increases interactivity rather than reducing it. The asymmetric track set up on each side further adds to the puzzle.

My thoughts on fixed work-rates remain the same here as they did in Channel Tunnel: I think the variable work-rates and weather are a massive part of what makes Snowdonia special and removing them comes with a heavy cost. Just like with Channel Tunnel though, I’m grateful this scenario explored this as it’s offered me a greater understanding for why I believe this.

What do you think of Siege of Petersburg? Do you enjoy the different setting and pace? Do you think it plays better at 2 or 4 players? Let me know below!

Interested in more Snowdonia? Check out Grand Tour here! Late pledges are open now!